Posted on 11/27/2008 2:11:06 AM PST by solfour
“Eventually the case will get to the Supreme Court, establish the facts, and clear the air. It’s really all very simple.”
I think you are too optimistic about this. The Supreme Court will do everything it can to avoid adjudicating this issue—disqualifying an legitimately elected president (especially the first black one) after he has won is not something any justice is going to want to do. For Keyes as a plaintiff, there are a lot of ways for the Court to avoid it—for example, there is no case or controversy as between Keyes and Obama. Even if Obama is disqualified, it doesn’t help Keyes at all. He cannot prove he would win any electoral votes if Obama were disqualified—in fact it’s immensely unlikely.
The electors have been elected. We don’t really elect a president. We elect electors. They elect the president. By custom, they vote for the guy who won their state. But they don’t have to. They could elect me if they wanted to although this set of electors is more likely to elect William Ayers than me. But if Obama is disqualified, it doesn’t affect the validity of the election of the electors. Yet the relief Keyes is seeking is to prevent validly elected electors from being seated.
In any event, BO is only a tiny part of the problem. Congress is the biggest problem and noone these electors are going to select is going to put the brakes on Congress.
We’re hosed as a nation for the next four years regardless what happens on this issue.
That remains to be seen.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
This isn't about four years. This is about more than two hundred years of the constitution being the underlying legal authority of this nation. As horrific as the election of Obama is, the constitutional question is ten thousand times more important to us as a country.
MM (in TX)
Please elaborate. It was my understanding that Keyes intention was to prevent the electors from casting their votes for a man who is ineligible for the job.
I believe the interpretation of “natural born” that is most accurate and that will prevail among those members of the Court who care about the original meaning of the term, is that you are born into undivided allegiance to the United States. That cannot be the case if you are born simultaneously the citizen of another country and therefore subject to its laws.
Depending on the laws of Germany and the US at that time, your son is probably a citizen from birth of the US, but also of Germany, and therefore not natural born.
There is some question about whether natural born requires both parents to be citizens or just the father, but my guess is the Court would opt for both, regarding the greater importance of the father as an obsolete idea.
If your wife was a citizen of the US at the time of your daughter’s birth, she would be natural born, even if your wife continued to possess German nationality.
All IMHO.
Leo Donofrio, whose lawsuit will be reviewed by the full Court on Dec. 5th, maintains that to be natural born, you must have two citizen parents AND be born on US soil, but I do not believe the Court will accept that narrow an interpretation. If it does, then your son is definitely not natural born.
I am not sure how valid they are if the electors are casting those votes for a man who is not Constitutionally eligible. If, for example, a Chinese gymnast was found to be ineligible to participate in the Olympics because of a violation of the age restrictions; then would it be a proper argument for the Chinese to then say, “She received her scores and her medals from valid judges who gave her valid scores therefore the rules are nullified, suspended and invalid.
Why have any Constitutional requirements at all if they carry no weight? Are they rather Constitutional suggestions? Does the Constitution merely make capricious suggestions concerning requirements? I agree with you on this.
There is a difference between being a citizen from birth and being a natural born citizen. The Wong Kim Ark case is about whether he was a citizen, not whether he was natural born.
No anchor babies are “natural born” citizens under the traditional meaning of the term. As for whether they are citizens from birth, that’s a different question, about which I do not have a strong opinion.
I hope yours is the interpretation the court takes (if they take it up, which they should). I’ve seen “the father has to be a citizen” and “as long as you’re born there”
Your argument is fine and well-stated. However, American military installations are not American soil. I must preface this by saying if anyone’s child deserves to be a “natural born” or any other type of citizen, it should be the children of those who have served.
This is not about what you or I think is right or fair, but rather what the law says regarding constitutional requirements for the presidency. I think, as best I can interpret, that your child would be considered “natural born” by virtue of your being an American citizen. There are, however, a lot of references to “parents”, plural, and that is where it really gets complicated. I would be fine with the Father being a US citizen as the fulfillment of the necessary requirement for “natural born”. It is hard to know how a court or Congress will interpret the law. They managed to create a right to abortion out of whole cloth so anything is within the scope of possibilities.
Obama is three strikes OUT.
We just need to watch the umpires.
FrankR. Just sent you FReepmail.
Hallelulah! Talk about it Mr. Keyes. Keep talking.
Prayers for Mr. Keyes.
If you were only 18, then yes, your son would not be a German citizen. Unless the “military base” issue bypasses that.
See that law in effect at the time Obama was born.
4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside
of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have
established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.
If he is found to be fraudulently President, he would be impeached, forced to resign and Biden would be President. Which still sucks, but at least it wouldn’t be a Consitutional crisis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.